will25u said:

---

---

So, was Kramer acting on his own, or was he acting under the direction of McCain? Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out.

Tibbers said:

---

I think the jig is up indicator is more that he went behind everyone to ask Pientka "so how ****ed are we?" Or "we need to get our stories straight" or "holy ****, we need to get one last sex sesh in before the lid is blown and im not talkin about my gamecock"

---

Not from SC or a true Gamecock fan, but due to work assignment used to make bus. trips there on a somewhat routine basis. Liked the pun and did purchase a "You Can't Lick Our Cocks" bumper sticker.

Needs to be here.

how does this tie into the "Hurricane" or "insurance policy"? (for lack of better term, the actions by FBI etc. to bring down Trump)

Secolobo said:

---

Needs to be here.

---

I am trying to understand why Gitmo is not considered the sovereign territory of the US? I'm of the opinion you either try these people or dump them off in whatever hell hole you found them in. Quite honestly if they were that terrible I don't know why they weren't KIA to begin with.

Intelligence gathering.

Also, didn't Obama basically ransom some?

The story on it.

MaxPower said:

---

I am trying to understand why Gitmo is not considered the sovereign territory of the US? I'm of the opinion you either try these people or dump them off in whatever hell hole you found them in. Quite honestly if they were that terrible I don't know why they weren't KIA to begin with.

---

Back around 2002 the Bush admin won a case at SCOTUS arguing the constitution doesn't apply there, as it is merely leased territory that belongs to Cuba, not the US. Basically, no constitutional rights for foreign nationals held by US outside of US territory.

It's not a lease in terms of years, either, I think we pay the Cubans like $4K a year for it and it can't be terminated/modified without the assent of both parties. Kinda funny, really.

Remember how our " constitutional" prez campaigned on closing it? Then he got in office and the saw the "benefits" of how it was shielded from the constitution.

Secolobo said:

---

Remember how our " constitutional" prez campaigned on closing it? Then he got in office and the saw the "benefits" of how it was shielded from the constitution.

---

Well, he was happy to trade away the worst scum there for our scum (Berghdal).

Closing it would have agitated our intelligence community against him; that wouldn't have helped his weaponization of Intelligence gathering against his political enemies (domestic and foreign), which is what this thread is really all about.

At some point early on (Prior to 2010), someone clearly sat Valerie down and explained it to her.

Secolobo said:

---

Remember how our " constitutional" prez campaigned on closing it? Then he got in office and the saw the "benefits" of how it was shielded from the constitution.

---

I don't remember this, but if we can rendition foreign adversaries/terrorists/ murderous scum.......ok.

Obama campaigned on this - I remember that wack stating he would close it, first day - he had to call on Greg Craig to explain his executive order to the assembled media in his first press conference.

What other unconstitutional things has our "constitutional" prez done?

Big picture to me (my opinion and observation) - he follows the law, tried to work with congress when the Rino's were in charge.

He is stymied by the DC swamp (I know it sounds trite - but it is true).

Carter Page's book is out & Herridge is reading it.

https://thefederalist.com/2020/08/28/the-michael-flynn-saga-reveals-democrats-near-coup-use-of-federal-power/

Article by Professor Cleveland. In depth review of the FBI interview of Flynn over the Kielyak calls that lead to his court case. You know the details, but Cleveland develops the thread that the roles of Mary McCord & Sally Yates were pivotal in the firing of Flynn, & that one or both lied.

Quote:

---

.....
So why did Yates think otherwise? Did McCord, who "reviewed the Flynn transcripts" and "pulled out excerpts for Yates" in preparation for the meeting, also mislead Yates about Flynn's conversation with the ambassador? If so, was it intentional, or was McCord merely a victim of her own confirmation bias?

There is no doubt McCord held a bias: "When McCord left DOJ she was hired by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, serving 'front and center' in the whistleblower fraud run by Schiff that later led to the failed attempt to impeach president Trump."

Intentional or not, Yates regurgitated the false claim to McGahn that Flynn had discussed sanctions with Kisylak and then implied that Flynn had lied to Pence about his conversations with the Russian ambassador. President Trump, believing Flynn had lied to the vice president, then fired Flynn, which was clearly the goal......

---

MaxPower said:

---

I am trying to understand why Gitmo is not considered the sovereign territory of the US?

---

Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 1005(g):

United States Defined- For purposes of this section, the term `United States', when used in a geographic sense, is as defined in section 101(a)(38) of the Immigration and Nationality Act and, in particular, does not include the United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Section 101(a)(38) of Immigration and Nationality Act:

The term "United States", except as otherwise specifically herein provided, when used in a geographical sense, means the continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands of the United States, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.


Can someone explain why its relevant to this thread?

drcrinum said:

---

https://thefederalist.com/2020/08/28/the-michael-flynn-saga-reveals-democrats-near-coup-use-of-federal-power/

Article by Professor Cleveland. In depth review of the FBI interview of Flynn over the Kielyak calls that lead to his court case. You know the details, but Cleveland develops the thread that the roles of Mary McCord & Sally Yates were pivotal in the firing of Flynn, & that one or both lied.

Quote:

---

.....
So why did Yates think otherwise? Did McCord, who "reviewed the Flynn transcripts" and "pulled out excerpts for Yates" in preparation for the meeting, also mislead Yates about Flynn's conversation with the ambassador? If so, was it intentional, or was McCord merely a victim of her own confirmation bias?

There is no doubt McCord held a bias: "When McCord left DOJ she was hired by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, serving 'front and center' in the whistleblower fraud run by Schiff that later led to the failed attempt to impeach president Trump."

Intentional or not, Yates regurgitated the false claim to McGahn that Flynn had discussed sanctions with Kisylak and then implied that Flynn had lied to Pence about his conversations with the Russian ambassador. President Trump, believing Flynn had lied to the vice president, then fired Flynn, which was clearly the goal......

---

---

Didn't we come to this conclusion here, or at least speculate this might be the case when the call transcripts came out?

Thread

Secolobo said:

---

---

This is when Burr was leading it......underscoring the fact that Burr was in with Warner in pushing the horse**** Russia collusion narrative.

Let's hope it happens Monday.

Hhmm.

Quote:

---

The thread, dated March 29, 2017, starts with James Rybicki of the FBI telling Andrew McCabe, Bill Priestap, James Baker, Peter Strozk and Lisa Pagea familiar cast of characters!along with others whose names have been redacted (why?), that "the Director"James Comey, Director of the FBI"would like a briefing tomorrowon the sensitive application."

This is intriguing to say the least. What was "the sensitive application" that was, on one hand, so well known to the FBI's inner circle that it could be so identified, and at the same time, so sensitive that it couldn't actually be named? The obvious answer is that it was the third application for a FISA warrant to spy on Carter Page, which was in fact filed with the FISA court on April 7, just nine days after these emails.

But it may not be that simple. Andrew McCabe, Comey's deputy, asked Peter Strzoknot, interestingly, his boss, who asked for the briefing: "Any idea what's driving this?" So there was nervousness within the McCabe/Strzok/Page cadre about why James Comey suddenly wanted a briefing on "the sensitive application." Strzok's reply is tantalizing:

Quote:

---

Jim R (James Ryzicki, whose email began the thread) said OAG [the Office of the Attorney General] told him the AG wanted a brief in advance of signing and would want a little bit of time to think about it.

---

It makes sense that the Attorney General would want to be briefed on the "sensitive application" for a third warrant to spy on Carter Page, the first since the Trump administration took office. Except that the Attorney General on March 29, 2017, was Jeff Sessions, and Sessions had already recused himself from all matters touching on the 2016 campaign, including the Russia investigation.

And, in fact, the third FISA application to spy on Page was signed off on, not by Sessions because of his recusal, but by underling Dana Boente.

---

More here

https://dailycaller.com/2020/08/30/john-racliffe-john-durham-russia-declasify/

Quote:

---

.....
Ratcliffe said that he is not privy to Durham's findings, but that he has provided the prosecutor access to intelligence documents needed for the investigation.

"I'm coordinating with him to make sure that he has the intelligence documents that he needs to do his work, and what I don't want to do is declassify something that might prejudice his work so we're going to have to coordinate as we go forward," said Ratcliffe, a former U.S. congressman from Texas.

Ratcliffe said he has tried to avoid declassifying documents that would "prejudice" Durham's investigation, though he said he's "optimistic that I'll be declassifying additional documents soon.".....

---

The above is from Ratcliffe's appearance on Maria's show this morning.

Quote:

---

"I'm coordinating with him to make sure that he has the intelligence documents that he needs to do his work, and what I don't want to do is declassify something that might prejudice his work so we're going to have to coordinate as we go forward," said Ratcliffe, a former U.S. congressman from Texas.

---

The most obvious way Durham's "work" could be "prejudice(d)" is if Durham is looking at bringing charges and indictments.

She always has a pretty good show, but today was exceptional. I was watching the show in real time, and saw a comment from Schiff on the Chyron below with him *****ing about Ratcliffe's new intel rules.

There's GOT to be a way for those pathetic seditionists to be caught. I suspect the Missouri AUSA has also been tasked to find out. Maybe I'm hoping.

Just to make sure, if elected officials hear an intel briefing, and within 24 hours, bits and pieces of that intel briefing are leaked, those elected officials are culpable, correct? It's GOT to be more than a censure.

Quote:

---

Just to make sure, if elected officials hear an intel briefing, and within 24 hours, bits and pieces of that intel briefing are leaked, those elected officials are culpable, correct? It's GOT to be more than a censure.

---

Start throwing those reporters in jail for contempt of court, too.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

"I'm coordinating with him to make sure that he has the intelligence documents that he needs to do his work, and what I don't want to do is declassify something that might prejudice his work so we're going to have to coordinate as we go forward," said Ratcliffe, a former U.S. congressman from Texas.

---

The most obvious way Durham's "work" could be "prejudice(d)" is if Durham is looking at bringing charges and indictments.

---

/boydogpraying.gif

Since they will only be giving written Intel briefings, they need to change some of the wording so they know and can prove who leaked it.

Here's the clip with Maria

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wbNhRw2nCaxw0QaNmajk0Bdd8m6XPmfA/view

JJMt said:

---

Wow. Unbelievable.

---

The damage inflicted on the republic by Obama is so deep, it would take decades to recover from. The social fabric itself may have been irrevocably damaged, not just the judiciary.